Dunno if I would have worded it quite that way. Probably would have left out the fucks. I probably would have gone on to say that both Ruby and Python syntax are absurd to look at and decipher if you are blessed with the gift of understanding C-like syntax. The notion that white space is syntactically crucial is ridiculous.

Nah, the Ruby/Python quirks are as numerous and odd as JS so it appears that the thesis of the parent's statement is mostly invalid.

Here's an idea- don't be a lazy good-for-nothing and use 'this'. Try working with var self = this. You'll find your headache magically disappears because scope is clear.

And I'll betcha a fin that little piece of advice is in the book. It's in Javascript: The Good Parts.

http://www.html5rocks.com/tutorials/workers/basics/

There's probably a lot of concurrency one could get away with using workers.

Yes- I agree with you on this. JS is simple but you should always be concerned with handling data asynchro- especially with JS where one frozen or busy thread will bring the whole thing to a halt. <Ballmer>Callbacks, callbacks, callbacks</Ballmer>

And if anyone is up for some reading this series is pretty nice:
http://howtonode.org/object-graphs

As well as 'JavaScript: The Good Parts'- Douglass Crockford

Uhh, I quite like how the module and 'require' patterns work in JS. <-- read: I am extolling their virtues. I am a big fan of quick and dirty object decoration as well (as long as you keep it in the closure). Webworkers do processing in other threads. And V8 has a whole debugging API.

Never have been entirely sure why people are so quick to pee all over JS. After having done Perl, Python, C# and Actionscript for corporate production as well as private there are benefits to all of them (less so Actionscript after learning how to deal with the wild nature of JS). I guess it'a all about knowing when to hold them, when to fold them and when to walk away.

Are you saying that you keep the product managers and marketing from feature bombing you 3 days from code complete by employing some magical force barrier? DO WANT!

Well, as there is no retooling to do on motor production (hydrogen can be used in existing conventional internal combustion engines with some slight modifications) and you have stuff like this:

http://www.physorg.com/news183914624.html

And there are no tons of terrifically toxic battery waste to deal with, I'd say it's cleaner than burning existing fuel (even biodiesel), generating new electric motor models and batteries and knocks off a whole set delivery and production supply chains.

Except for them offering alternative solutions. (Conservation, global power grid/sharing, alternative fuels, improved capacitors, solar, wind, tidal...) and the relative nature of a term like 'bitch', I think you've got something there.

Get your mommy to stop playing with /you're/ "uncle" of the week, come down to the basement, and explain the harder words to you.

FTFY.

Prepare to not be surprised.

Look harder.

I watched aghast heavy breathed explanation of why Fukushima should be the reason to belly up to her looooong time goal of eliminating nuclear power. I was left feeling all gross and gooey after her comments. She did bring facts to bear when speaking of how dangerous cesium is and other interesting bits. But she was careful, so deliberately careful, like Donald Rumsfeld careful, about saying that any of those factiods were true about Fukushima- which they weren't/aren't. Yet she did her very best to sell it.

She is a dangerous woman.

Yo, the sig man. Like, first, n' stuff.

Sheesh

Jackie Chan.

They let people in the NSA look at /. Who knew?

Aside from that quip- 'the good guys' would probably want to do things in the open like the Linux community does. Sharing data and methodology and so on. I do not see a lot of that coming from the NSA. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.